WEZZ,,,,why do you rely on self projection as God (SPAG) to fill in all those enormous gaps your God has left for you? to go from just being a god in a pantheon of gods (your god had a father in the very least from scriptures) then he has evolved for lack of a better word into a single God and creator of everything....if I ever believed I would have had doubt right there.

Where is your doubts,or even a curious nature that leads to question the gaps in the story?

Sorry I missed this post..... I'm a little confused on what you mean, do you think you could elaborate a little more please? =)

Logged

I want to leave this world knowing that I did everything I can to make it a better place...

Hello, as I stated in my introduction post, I am a christian. I would like to hear some of your beliefs as to why a God does not exist, or if you do believe he exists, why you believe he exists. Everyone is welcome to post it here, try to make it a brief paragraph if you can, I just want to develop an understanding of your reasoning.

All god stories have the same qualities found in fairy tales for children. From Santa to Peter Pan, a story is just a story. There is nothing that shows any god to be any different than a fairy tale. Quetzalcoatl, Amaterasu, Yahweh, Odin, Zeus, Shiva, and thousands of other stories created throughout the ages to explain (poorly) how the world works by putting powerful beings as the creators and controllers of the world. They've always proven inconsistent with reality, so there is no reason to think any of them hold any value.

As far as atheism trumping all religions, and I'm sure you are aware of this, many modern day atheists have turned from atheism to agnosticism

Do you know what agnosticism is? Because agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. To be agnostic is to claim less than absolute certainty. To claim to be gnostic, implies you believe you cannot possibly be wrong. Atheism and theism are stances one can take. Thus one can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist. You will find most atheists on this forum are agnostic atheists who acknowledge that the existence of some "god-like" entity is possible - if exceedingly unlikely. Although most are quite certain none of the existing religions describe it.

Logged

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

There are any number of things that I don't believe in. Like all the thousands of other historically worshipped gods. When you understand why you disregard all of those other thousands of gods, spirits, demons, etc., you'll better understand why I disregard your personal favorites.

Why don't I believe in invisible pink unicorns? Show me evidence.

Why don't I believe in your god? Show me evidence.

All any theist has to do is PROVE their god exists. Go ahead, win the Nobel Prize.

I don't have to prove any particular god DOESN'T exist. After all, if you claim Mickey Mouse exists somehow, somewhere, as a real, talking mouse, there is always another rock somewhere in the universe (or other hypothetical universes) that he could be hiding under.

Based on the same assertions made by various modern and past theists, Jupiter or Thor or Quetzlcoatl and their various mythologies are as 'real' as any of your newfangled modern personal gods, doomsdays, heavens, hells, etc.

Do you know what agnosticism is? Because agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. To be agnostic is to claim less than absolute certainty. To claim to be gnostic, implies you believe you cannot possibly be wrong. Atheism and theism are stances one can take. Thus one can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist. You will find most atheists on this forum are agnostic atheists who acknowledge that the existence of some "god-like" entity is possible - if exceedingly unlikely. Although most are quite certain none of the existing religions describe it.

That's interesting, Because the definition of atheism that I am aware of, and correct if I'm wrong is stated as the following:"The theory or belief that God does not exist."

Now to go on and call oneself an agnostic atheist seems very contradictory, considering that one means concretely that you believe God does not exist, but then the other believes that it is possible for God to exist.

The literal definition of agnosticism:a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence"

Now if you consider yourself to fall under agnosticism beliefs, then ideal of there actually being or not being a God is merely up to each individual person, as the definition clearly states that neither side can be proved..

I guess what you're saying is to be an agnostic atheist is to believe that there is not a God, but also believe there is no way to prove it either way? Correct me if I am wrong in this...

Logged

I want to leave this world knowing that I did everything I can to make it a better place...

Genesis, all wrong, our planet is older than 6000 thousand years, There was no Adam and eve to perpetuate this species to what we see today.

Absolutely impossible, genetic diversity is needed. The story of the great raven extracting people from a giant clam makes better sense than; man from mud or female from rib. You would be excused out of science class for making such ridicules statements.

Taking snakes.. Really. Exodus from Egypt. funny the Egyptians never wrote about losing thousands of slaves in one day. Talking about a bible the bible is about as interesting as sitting in a dentist chair. It’s painful to take seriously.

I never knew what a god was till I was nine. I just did not get it, why would it talk to so many people except me? Then I grew up. No hobgoblins under the bed no fairies in the garden, there is no grand plan or heaven and hell.

Just us humans, living, creating, making friends building lives, passing on genetic material then finally dying. That's it. You're here, you have one life. Thank your parents and enjoy, because it don't last long.

The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

Well as I stated before, I don't disregard all those other Gods... Quite frankly I believe that for someone to make a claim as to what God looks like is pretty ridiculous.... I believe that everyone has their own interpretation of what their God is, some people's interpretations differing much more than others'...

Now explain to me why you don't have to prove to me that a certain God does not exist...

« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 06:31:38 AM by HAL »

Logged

I want to leave this world knowing that I did everything I can to make it a better place...

The success of Christianity says nothing about its correctness, since Hinduism and Islam are also pretty successful. The adherents of Islam are significantly more hard-core, since most western Christians don't really seem to give their religion anything more than lip-service.

In the debate against the contents of the Bible, the problem is that the fan-club of Christians decide what they are going to let go of. Many, many "Christians" have let go of the creation story, and view it only as Hebrew mythology (as have the Jews). The question is: why don't you? The answer is most likely because if you do, you enter a crisis, and have to evaluate how 'true' the Bible really is, so you defer your realization that the Bible is full of errors until a rainy day. It's not that you can't see the problem of a God who created the sun on the forth day, but you defer realizing it's false, using a cognitive web of tricks and fallacies. (Your idea that Christianity is successful must mean something, in fact, means nothing.)

An atheist, and indeed liberal 'Christian', is someone who just calls "a spade a spade". God did not create the sun after plants on the 4th day. You should not need any friends to help you out on this one, but apparently you do. It's called the "phone a friend"[1] effect.

Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).

Somewhat different definition from what you're using, WeZzZzRURR. And this one describes me personally quite well.I don't believe in any god because of the utter lack of proof for any of them (plus the explanations neuroscience has come up with for things like, but not limited to, 'feeling a prescence' and 'receiving a revelation'). And I allow for the fact that there might be some sort of god though, this allowance is pro forma only.

You seem to be gnostic theist ... You believe a god exists and claim personal knowledge thereof. You've also suggested that if any part of the bible is proven wrong, no one (and I assume that you include yourself in there) will believe in it, or the god that comes attached, anymore.Now, for starters, never mind proof from outside the bible, the bible does a bang up job of disproving itself. E.g. Genesis contains two creation accounts, each giving a different order of creation. They can't both be true therefore, even if every other letter of the bible checked out, the bible still has been proven to contain at least one section that 100% wrong by the standards you yourself have set. So, logically, you should now abandon christianity. Will you?

Logged

2 Interwebs 7:42And in the seventh year, thou shalt cast out the Nam from thine assembly for he haveth a potty mouth.

The way God evolves in the Bible is quite naked, and known to all students of academic theology, or anyone who has bothered to look at the Hebrew texts a bit.

Judaism starts off as a sacrificial religion, that uses sacred animal fat to keep the temple candles burning, because Yahweh, or El, (his name changes, depending on the day of the week), likes to hang around in the temple and sniff the smell of burning fat. From there, it just gets worse and worse, with Sheol magically becoming a place of torture, around 300BC, and then the Pharisees inventing their own "oral interpretation" of the Torah, because they weren't allowed to change it when they wanted to.

This stifling of Toral development leads to a bit of a problem down the track, when the Pharisees invent heaven and hell. A fictitious person who existed only for 2-3 years, deliberately gets himself crucified, so as not to leave any critical evidence that he existed, and the a chump called Paul, says he is channeling Jesus, and that the people who wrote Matthew got it all wrong, and Jesus was a prophylactic that protects you from the Old Testament.

It's really commendable that Christians left Galatians in the Bible, so that modern day skeptics could see how Christianity was falsely constructed by a lying attention-seeker, straight after Matthew warned us that many false prophets would come in Jesus' name.

I put this down to Jesus' inability to speak clearly. He was unable to write, or get his message out, the first time. Evidence of this, is that he stood before Pilate and refused to have a decent civil conversation with the man, despite that Pilate was obviously a good chap, and his wife was a prophet. Hence we need Paul's drivel in the Bible to clear up all the lies in Matthew.

Paul might, in fact, be as credible as Tania Head (maybe).

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

The success of Christianity says nothing about its correctness, since Hinduism and Islam are also pretty successful. The adherents of Islam are significantly more hard-core, since most western Christians don't really seem to give their religion anything more than lip-service.

In the debate against the contents of the Bible, the problem is that the fan-club of Christians decide what they are going to let go of. Many, many "Christians" have let go of the creation story, and view it only as Hebrew mythology (as have the Jews). The question is: why don't you? The answer is most likely because if you do, you enter a crisis, and have to evaluate how 'true' the Bible really is, so you defer your realization that the Bible is full of errors until a rainy day. It's not that you can't see the problem of a God who created the sun on the forth day, but you defer realizing it's false, using a cognitive web of tricks and fallacies. (Your idea that Christianity is successful must mean something, in fact, means nothing.)

An atheist, and indeed liberal 'Christian', is someone who just calls "a spade a spade". God did not create the sun after plants on the 4th day. You should not need any friends to help you out on this one, but apparently you do. It's called the "phone a friend"[1] effect.

In response to your post, I did not mean success of Christianity if that is how I stated it, I mean an observational standpoint on my part that if any part of the bible were proven 100% wrong, the number of followers would greatly decrease....

And as far as things in the bible, I have not found something that I completely disagree with entirely on, but I also have not read the bible from cover to cover... I do find it possible that the bible has been subject to change over the years, and that is why I clearly stated that I am a Christian with slightly differing views.

Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).

Somewhat different definition from what you're using, WeZzZzRURR. And this one describes me personally quite well.I don't believe in any god because of the utter lack of proof for any of them (plus the explanations neuroscience has come up with for things like, but not limited to, 'feeling a prescence' and 'receiving a revelation'). And I allow for the fact that there might be some sort of god though, this allowance is pro forma only.

You seem to be gnostic theist ... You believe a god exists and claim personal knowledge thereof. You've also suggested that if any part of the bible is proven wrong, no one (and I assume that you include yourself in there) will believe in it, or the god that comes attached, anymore.Now, for starters, never mind proof from outside the bible, the bible does a bang up job of disproving itself. E.g. Genesis contains two creation accounts, each giving a different order of creation. They can't both be true therefore, even if every other letter of the bible checked out, the bible still has been proven to contain at least one section that 100% wrong by the standards you yourself have set. So, logically, you should now abandon christianity. Will you?

Although I hoped to get back on the topic of God and not the bible, I would like you to provide to me the passages in which you speak of, by verse, that contradict each other. This goes back to what I stated in a previous post, the bible is very subject to individual interpretation, making it near impossible to come to an agreement on between two feuding sides. As I also just stated, above, I consider myself a christian with slightly different views, due to the possibility of altercations made upon the bible over the years....

And that's the problem that we commonly arrive to in this debate.... A similar problem shared by atheists.... Atheism is a belief, is it not? To just limit yourself to being called an atheist is quite insufficient because there are so many different belief systems among atheists.....

Now, to touch on the agnostic atheism:

Basically you believe that there is not a God, but accept the possibility of there being one, just being highly unlikely? To be honest with all of you, if that is your belief system, then I am done with you, because this post is directed to those who absolutely believe that there is not a God, and give no possibility of there being one.

To call yourself atheist, then continue to believe that it is somewhat possible for there to be a God, has to be one of the most contradictory beliefs I have ever witnessed.....

Logged

I want to leave this world knowing that I did everything I can to make it a better place...

In response to your post, I did not mean success of Christianity if that is how I stated it, I mean an observational standpoint on my part that if any part of the bible were proven 100% wrong, the number of followers would greatly decrease....

And as far as things in the bible, I have not found something that I completely disagree with entirely on, but I also have not read the bible from cover to cover... I do find it possible that the bible has been subject to change over the years, and that is why I clearly stated that I am a Christian with slightly differing views.

There are lots of things that have been proven 100% wrong (in totality), but still gain in popularity: Homeopathy, Astrology, Autism being caused by MMR vaccines. People believe things for political and fantasy reasons. If Homeopathy was even 2% correct, the adherents would just go from strength to strength. What you see is something utterly baseless, and is still clawing its way into the insurance and health system.

The Bible is at least clever enough to include facts, and confuse people so badly, that they cannot even read the whole thing. It's such an academic obfuscation, that good people such as yourself, need to depend on the opinions of biased "experts". The "phone a friend" effect.

Now, given that Christianity already has you by the balls: exploiting your need to be saved from hell, how easily do you think you can be tricked, by carefully constructed lies?

The reason I mention this, is because the Bible is either constructed by saints or liars. You have concluded, naively (IMHO), that it was by saints. You have to know that we (athiests) believe that the worst types of liars constructed the Bible. So, ask yourself, how long would you hold out against Koubi?

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

As for being an agnostic atheist ... Since it is logically impossible (as several have tried to explain to you) do DISprove ANYTHING ... unicorns, Santa, Smurfs, your god, Allah, Toutatis ... I must accept, pro forma, as stated before, that there is an infinitesimally small chance that there might be some kind of god. Just like there is an infinitesimally small chance that Buffy the vampire slayer is real.Does this mean I have a wooden stake on me at all times? Course not. That's why I put the 'pro forma' there.

Logged

2 Interwebs 7:42And in the seventh year, thou shalt cast out the Nam from thine assembly for he haveth a potty mouth.

......legitimate evidence of God's existence does not exist, and I believe for good reason.... If we all knew for a fact that God existed, then there would be absolutely no faith aspect to the religion... .....Faith is something that we all rely on on a day to day basis, whether we want to admit it or not. To criticize faith is to be a hypocrite.

Except that there are very, very few cases where your alleged "faith without evidence" exists.

Common claims are that "you have faith your car starts - that's the same thing" - but of course it isn't. I have the evidence from multiple previous startings. I can look at technical diagrams of starter motors and follow the physics. I have a huge amount of legitimate evidence to back up my "faith" that the car will start.

Or how about my "faith" that my family loves me? I have plenty of evidence there as well. Photos and videos of them, numerous occasions where they hugged me and told me they loved me, things they did for me.....plenty of evidence that all supports my "faith" that they love me.

But your faith - so you tell us - comes with no legitimate evidence. You believe because you have absolutely no reason to - and if that is truly the case, then there's nothing laudable in your decision to pick one unverifiable story over another. With no evidence for one mythology over another, you may just as well have "ippy-dippied" your way to religion, I'm afraid.

I'll give you an answer. I'll state my position, I am an agnostic atheist Buddhist. Agnostic because I don't claim knowledge to whether or not any deities exist, atheist because I lack belief in any deities and I find myself agreeing with philosophical Buddhism (not any of the religious or supernatural malarkey). So as an agnostic atheist, if asked the question, "are there any gods?" the answer would be, "I don't know, however, I don't believe in any."

So what would be my main reason for being a non-believer? For any deities? I'd say lack of evidence. Generally I like to be certain before I believe something is true. I might at times trust what a person says, but I think once their claims grow more extraordinary the burden for evidence I feel increases. I mean, if somebody said, "I went to the dentist today", I'm not going to ask them to prove it unless I have reason to doubt them[1]. If somebody says, "God exists", I will want evidence before I trust them or conversely, "evolution occurs" I will want evidence (which exists).

This is probably an adequate refutation to the claim that the Bible is infallible.

There is a great part where Joseph has two different fathers, and another where Jesus quotes parts of the OT not even existent- even in the original greek! It's excitingly comprehensive. One of my favourites is this:

DT 23:1 A castrate may not enter the assembly of the Lord. MT 19:12 Men are encouraged to consider making themselves castrates for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

Also consider looking at this:

It is a visual representation of the inconsistencies in the Bible.

« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 07:23:47 AM by EV »

Logged

Quote

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

I think most people here have a problem more with religion than they do with believing or not believing in some deity they can or can not show exists. I conducted a poll here awhile back and most of the atheists on here stated they would not only believe in the Christian god if it actually was shown to exist but some of those same people stated they would worship it.

There's a real problem with that, I feel. I wouldn't worship a being that has been shown in the Bible to be uncaring, selfish, jealous, wrathful or the multitudes of other things that most people find to be immoral. If Biblegod was shown 100% to exist, i'd be happy to burn foever in Hell.

The only religion I have any sort of respect for is Jainism all the rest seem to be "fire and brimstone".

What I love about Christianity is that a serial killer can go to Heaven as long as he accepts Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior and repents but an atheist, who has lived a good life, was charitable, and giving will burn in an everlasting Hell.

That's interesting, Because the definition of atheism that I am aware of, and correct if I'm wrong is stated as the following:"The theory or belief that God does not exist."

{snipped for brevity}

Hi, Wez, welcome to WWGHA. You're jumping right into the thick of things, and I think that's good.

To address this part first: there are (at least) two types of atheism:

1) Lack of belief in deities2) Belief that deities do not exist

Like most who are only beginning to investigate the subject, you are probably under the impression that the second type is the only type that exists. In fact, the first type also exists, and it is actually the majority viewpoint among atheists. The number of atheists who actually insist, with claimed certainty, that deities do not exist at all is probably, at most, ten percent of all self-described atheists.

You may not think this is an important distinction to make, but it is if you want to continue discussing these matters. If someone tells you that he is an atheist, you need to be careful not to jump to the conclusion that he is the second type, the type that is commonly called a "hard atheist" or "strong atheist" (as opposed to "soft" or "weak" atheist). If you do, you are likely to end up attacking positions that that atheist does not actually hold.

Aside, by the way: you should also be careful about using dictionary definitions, because dictionaries are written by people, often people who have agendas. It was not so long ago, for example, that if you looked up "atheism" in a dictionary, you would also find "evil" or "wickedness" listed as a definition (and some dictionaries do still give that definition, although they now generally list it as archaic). In fact, I'm old enough to remember seeing such definitions in most-recent-edition dictionaries, and while I'm no spring chicken, I don't have one foot in the grave, either.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

I gotta agree with HAL, Nam. You might be happy that you've made the right choice, but that will only last for the first few decades. A century at best. Afterward you'll regret it. That goes for the people in heaven as well, by the way. At least those who don't think that everyone who doesn't worship deserves to go to hell.

« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 07:57:53 AM by One Above All »

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

I gotta agree with HAL, Nam. You might be happy that you've made the right choice, but that will only last for the first few decades. A century at best. Afterward you'll regret it. That goes for the people in heaven as well, by the way. At least those who don't think that everyone who doesn't worship deserves to go to hell.

Being the puppet of a "god"[1] would be more of a hell to me than having my "soul" burn forever. It's nice though that you people think you know my mind better than I do.

I gotta agree with HAL, Nam. You might be happy that you've made the right choice, but that will only last for the first few decades.

Again - Ha! It won't last more than about 10 seconds until the little finger he's using to flip off Biblegod start burning off his hand. He'll change his brave tune quick enough. As I said - talk is cheap.

As many people have said, the biggest reason is the lack of evidence. There is just simply no evidence to suggest that there is a god. As far as the Bible God, there are so many inconsistencies, contradictions, absurdities, atrocities, and errors in the Bible as to make it virtually useless for anything. Here are a few of my better posts for your consideration :

That will give you a pretty good idea of my style and worldview. I am most certainly an atheist, one might even say an anti-theist. I don't believe that religion is true or real, and believe that it is detrimental to our society. As Christopher Hitchens said, such "preachments are evil and a direct threat to the survival of civilization."

Logged

"A resurrected person who is also the son of a virgin could still be talking nonsense. There's no logic that says he must be right. " Christopher Hitchens

It's nice though that you people think you know my mind better than I do.

I don't. But I know that nobody can withstand pain for eternity without trying to improve their situation. While I disagree with HAL's "10 seconds" thing, I agree with the basic principle - you cannot withstand it forever.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

I gotta agree with HAL, Nam. You might be happy that you've made the right choice, but that will only last for the first few decades.

Again - Ha! It won't last more than about 10 seconds until the little finger he's using to flip off Biblegod start burning off his hand. He'll change his brave tune quick enough. As I said - talk is cheap.

Souls go to hell, not flesh. Flesh is an earthly product. You know the saying: can't take it with you.

Souls don't have fingers. I wish I could call you an idiot bit my status here may go up for challenging a mod. Must be nice being protected like that. You'd never win a debate against me, fairly. Just like at your own website. How's it going over there without me, by the by?

While I disagree with HAL's "10 seconds" thing, I agree with the basic principle - you cannot withstand it forever.

OK, OK - 15 seconds.

Nam - You don't know your mind when it comes to eternal torture - I doubt anyone does. How could they even imagine it? It's not like somebody telling you "Eat this dead hamster or I'll hit your foot with a hammer!". You might be able to make that bargain and refuse, and take the hit. But claiming you would take eternal torture if Biblegod was proven to exist? It's amazing you try to be so arrogant in front of grownups.

But, thanks for the idea for a new thread I'm going to start. I appreciate that!